Post by plotthickens on Jan 9, 2018 14:29:43 GMT -5

I may be as close to an expert on the (agricultural) impetuses for the 21st amendment as we have here. Its history is FASCINATING, and since we're all bitching about there not being enough content around here, I'm gonna fucking do this.

In colonial America, people were drinking on average about 3.4 gallons a year.

By the 1840's, the very rich praries of middle America are creating a vast surplus. You couldn't ship grain overland quickly enough to keep it from spoiling, and if you could, you probably couldn't make a big enough profit to pay for the shipping. The solution was to concentrate the calories into a smaller, concentrated, high-value product that was shelf stable: booze.

Excess crops became gin, vodka, scotch, etc. It was cheap and plentiful, and easy to get: most places didn't even have laws about who could drink what at what age. Women were socially discouraged from drinking hard alcohol. Men, however, were encouraged to do so, and the amounts they drank were killing them.

The average adult US male was drinking half a pint of spirits -- distilled alcohols like gin and vodka -- A DAY. That's 8-12 shots of hard liquor, every day. Many began their day with a shot and a beer for breakfast. Men drank during lunch, then went back to their manufacturing jobs and some made mistakes and died. So were their sons.

1920 also: The first viable commercial refrigerator cars begin service. Prior to this, ice was packed above a load, in the roof of the rail car, but this was top-heavy and caused frequent derailings around turns. New refrigeration technology allowed the surplus grain to be fed to beef, creating a calorie-dense product that can be slaughtered, packaged, frozen, and then shipped frozen and viable to every city with a railhead. 7,000 of these reefer cars were in service by 1921. Amounts of stock cars delivering live beef drop to nearly nothing: reefers were taking over.

1925 to 1930: Mechanically refrigerated trucks enter service and gain public acceptance.

1929: The Great Depression. Uncounted farmers are forced to give up their land. Crop surplus for cattle feed and booze is drastically reduced.

1930: The number of refrigerator cars in the United States reached its maximum of approximately 183,000.

1933: Prohibition is repealed.

1934: The Dust Bowl. A great drought sweeps millions of tons of topsoil off the American plains due to the current, shitty farming practices. Uncounted farmers are destitute. Crop production is reduced even more.

After Prohibition, the amount of spirits consumed dropped to a third of what it had been and has stayed there (with a few raises and drops) until today.

The problem of excess alcohol consumption was a massive national problem, and it was thought that it necessitated a national answer. People of the time tried to prohibit alcohol consumption through legal means. It turns out that the national answer that truly fixed the problem was refrigeration technology and the reduction of crop surpluses due to tragic outside forces, not amending the U.S. Constitution.

Post by manifold on Jan 9, 2018 16:32:47 GMT -5

I may be as close to an expert on the (agricultural) impetuses for the 21st amendment as we have here. Its history is FASCINATING, and since we're all bitching about there not being enough content around here, I'm gonna fucking do this.

In colonial America, people were drinking on average about 3.4 gallons a year.

By the 1840's, the very rich praries of middle America are creating a vast surplus. You couldn't ship grain overland quickly enough to keep it from spoiling, and if you could, you probably couldn't make a big enough profit to pay for the shipping. The solution was to concentrate the calories into a smaller, concentrated, high-value product that was shelf stable: booze.

Excess crops became gin, vodka, scotch, etc. It was cheap and plentiful, and easy to get: most places didn't even have laws about who could drink what at what age. Women were socially discouraged from drinking hard alcohol. Men, however, were encouraged to do so, and the amounts they drank were killing them.

The average adult US male was drinking half a pint of spirits -- distilled alcohols like gin and vodka -- A DAY. That's 8-12 shots of hard liquor, every day. Many began their day with a shot and a beer for breakfast. Men drank during lunch, then went back to their manufacturing jobs and some made mistakes and died. So were their sons.

1920 also: The first viable commercial refrigerator cars begin service. Prior to this, ice was packed above a load, in the roof of the rail car, but this was top-heavy and caused frequent derailings around turns. New refrigeration technology allowed the surplus grain to be fed to beef, creating a calorie-dense product that can be slaughtered, packaged, frozen, and then shipped frozen and viable to every city with a railhead. 7,000 of these reefer cars were in service by 1921. Amounts of stock cars delivering live beef drop to nearly nothing: reefers were taking over.

1925 to 1930: Mechanically refrigerated trucks enter service and gain public acceptance.

1929: The Great Depression. Uncounted farmers are forced to give up their land. Crop surplus for cattle feed and booze is drastically reduced.

1930: The number of refrigerator cars in the United States reached its maximum of approximately 183,000.

1933: Prohibition is repealed.

1934: The Dust Bowl. A great drought sweeps millions of tons of topsoil off the American plains due to the current, shitty farming practices. Uncounted farmers are destitute. Crop production is reduced even more.

After Prohibition, the amount of spirits consumed dropped to a third of what it had been and has stayed there (with a few raises and drops) until today.

The problem of excess alcohol consumption was a massive national problem, and it was thought that it necessitated a national answer. People of the time tried to prohibit alcohol consumption through legal means. It turns out that the national answer that truly fixed the problem was refrigeration technology and the reduction of crop surpluses due to tragic outside forces, not amending the U.S. Constitution.

That was very interesting and educational, although I did know about the crazy consumption figures pre-prohibition.

However, you didn't address my legal/constitutional question. If the federal government didn't have the authority to prohibit alcohol without an amendment granting them said authority, on what authority did they subsequently prohibit marijuana (and any other drug)?

Post by plotthickens on Jan 10, 2018 11:55:53 GMT -5

I kinda did address your question. The magnitude of the problem seemed to require a very large solution: amending the fucking constitution itself. Examining the corollary, we might conclude that other drug problems have not been so massive, so they haven't required such a massive solution.

Post by manifold on Jan 10, 2018 12:48:06 GMT -5

I kinda did address your question. The magnitude of the problem seemed to require a very large solution: amending the fucking constitution itself. Examining the corollary, we might conclude that other drug problems have not been so massive, so they haven't required such a massive solution.

If you believe you addressed my question, then obviously I didn't explain it well enough. The magnitude of the problem is completely irrelevant to what I'm trying to understand.

Yes it was a national problem requiring a national solution. I get that. But why couldn't Congress simply pass a law banning the production, transportation and consumption of alcohol? That would be a national solution to a national problem, no? Presumably, the reason they didn't is because they didn't have the constitutional authority to do so, and that's why a constitutional solution (amendment) was required. So again, if Congress didn't have the constitutional authority to ban alcohol without an amendment, from where did the get the authority to ban other drugs without an amendment?

Post by plotthickens on Jan 10, 2018 23:03:11 GMT -5

You're obviously asking how the government can legally ban any drug from the aspect of "it can't, legally" and looking to fight for that point of view. You probably want to get from there to where you can talk about your drug of choice (probably marijuana) and how it should be legalized.

Post by manifold on Jan 11, 2018 10:28:30 GMT -5

You're obviously asking how the government can legally ban any drug from the aspect of "it can't, legally" and looking to fight for that point of view. You probably want to get from there to where you can talk about your drug of choice (probably marijuana) and how it should be legalized.

So why don't you just get to that point.

lol

No, it's actually an academic question I've pondered for a long time. But may be more than academic soon...

My hypothesis is that if federal drug laws were challenged in court when initially legislated, they would have been stuck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. However, since they have never been challenged (to my knowledge), it's become accepted or "settled" law and any challenge today would likely fail. But maybe not. And this could be where we are headed.

Post by plotthickens on Jan 11, 2018 20:23:02 GMT -5

If the government can legally regulate drugs like alcohol and tobacco and speed, they can regulate all the drugs. If a drug today cannot be regulated because regulation is illegal/unconstitutional, then all the regulation must be reversed.

Post by manifold on Jan 12, 2018 9:50:27 GMT -5

If the government can legally regulate drugs like alcohol and tobacco and speed, they can regulate all the drugs. If a drug today cannot be regulated because regulation is illegal/unconstitutional, then all the regulation must be reversed.

That's not gonna happen.

I agree, it's not gonna happen. Because it's settled law even though it's objectively unconstitutional.

Post by manifold on Jan 12, 2018 10:57:12 GMT -5

SCOTUS accepted the ACA as part of a tax on the populous. If they can tax the populous to provide healthcare, they can tax the populous to provide regulation.

Who said anything bout tax?

I'm specifically talking about the federal government's authority to ban the sale, possession, consumption etc. of any substance. The history of prohibition suggests they don't have said authority, which is why an amendment was required to ban alcohol.

Post by plotthickens on Jan 12, 2018 11:30:00 GMT -5

SCOTUS accepted the ACA as part of a tax on the populous. If they can tax the populous to provide healthcare, they can tax the populous to provide regulation.

Who said anything bout tax?

I'm specifically talking about the federal government's authority to ban the sale, possession, consumption etc. of any substance. The history of prohibition suggests they don't have said authority, which is why an amendment was required to ban alcohol.

Healthcare provides health. Many times, via drugs. Constitutional, legal taxes are used to regulate those drugs (some of which now include MDMA, cannabis, ecstasy, etc).

If those drugs are regulated by constitutional, legal taxes under constitutional, legal authority... then other drugs can be as well.

To me, the history of Prohibition does not suggest that the US Government does not have the authority to regulate drugs. I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Post by plotthickens on Jan 13, 2018 16:57:17 GMT -5

If Congress didn't have the authority to ban alcohol nationwide without a constitutional amendment, why did it have that authority when it comes to every other drug?

Who said they didn't have the authority? They do. They used it. Prohibition happened. They still regulate it. It's still banned in some areas. Where are you getting the "they don't have the authority" argument?

Shoutbox

Give a shout out to someone on PFFA!

plasmaball: Yes a woman's Orgasm is like trying to spot the wild snow leopard. You must wait weeks upon maybe months and if you are lucky you might spot a small puddle from this cunning creature called the orgasm. its more like sometimes you have to fake it becauseFeb 7, 2013 12:05:17 GMT -5